SUNGROUP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-24(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4892/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 February 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts by not accepting the cash withdrawals of Rs. 8 lacs as explained. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sold an immovable property on 13.04.2011 and deposited the sale consideration into her bank account. Subsequently, she withdrew Rs. 4 lacs twice on 19.04.2011. The Tribunal found that these withdrawals were sufficient to explain the investment in question. Consequently, the addition amounting to Rs. 7,52,060/- was directed to be deleted. The principle derived is that if cash withdrawals from a bank account, sourced from the sale of an asset, are used for an investment, and these withdrawals are adequately explained, the investment cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 69A.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shanti Kumari, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 17.07.2025, in proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Both lower authorities had treated an investment of Rs. 7,52,060/- in immovable property as unexplained under Section 69A of the Act. The assessment order was dated 30.12.2019. The assessee had sold an immovable property on 13.04.2011 and deposited the sale consideration in her ICICI Bank account. She subsequently withdrew Rs. 4 lacs twice on 19.04.2011, which formed the basis of the addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in treating the investment of Rs. 7,52,060/- in immovable property as unexplained under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the assessee explaining the source of funds through cash withdrawals from her bank account. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the cash withdrawals of Rs. 8 lacs (Rs. 4 lacs twice on 19.04.2011) from her bank account, which were deposited from the sale consideration of a previously sold immovable property, adequately explained the investment in question. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was incorrect. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 24/09/2025

(A.Y 2012-13) Shanti Kumari Sharma Vs. ITO C/o CA Vaibhav Goel Ward-2 (2) (3) 75, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad 1st Floor, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh PAN NO. ALFPK1339Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Vaibhav Goel, CA Revenue by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 13/10/2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA , JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1078607047(1) dated 17.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It transpires during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have treated the assessee’s investment made of Rs.7,52,060/- in purchase of immovable property in question, as unexplained u/s.69A of the Act, in assessment order dated 30.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

2 4892/Del/2025 Shanti Kumari

4.

A perusal of the case file reveals with the able assistance coming from both the parties that assessee in fact had sold an immovable property / flat on 13.04.2011 /deposited the corresponding sale consideration in her bank account maintained with M/s. ICICI Bank followed by withdrawal Rs. 4 lacs each (twice) on 19.04.2011 which is subject matter of addition of Rs.752060/-, made by both the lower authorities. That being the case this tribunal hereby holds both the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in not accepting the above cash withdrawals of Rs.8 lacs as explained, to delete the impugned addition amounting to Rs.752060/- in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13/10/2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →